One "difference" has to do with which country's law is involved. Another has to do with what kind of law - criminal or civil - is involved. Another has to do with exactly what it is that the law forbids.

On the P2P vs. Amazon situation, it seems to me that distribution is distribution. Amazon distributes infringing material all by itself, the P2P user distribute it as a group. Further, if I understand how P2P works, both Amazon and the P2P user store the infringing material, or some portion of it, on their own computer.

So in the absence of some other distinction, it seems to me that they should be, and will be, treated the same. As far as I can see, "good faith" only comes into play in terms of what the statutory damages wind up being.

Nope, you're never going to convince me that Amazon's retail store is the equivalent to P2P file sharing, just not going to happen. YouTube does the same thing as Amazon, infringing material is reported when it's removed. I think the statutory damages will add up to about ... zero, is my guess.

Not even close. YouTube does not sell the videos. Actively selling and passively hosting are completely different things. Then again, this has been explained multiple times already and you still don't understand the difference.

The FBI warning on all the DVDs I've seen recently say that infringement, even without monetary gain, is subject to some astronomical fine and imprisonment.

Think about who puts that warning on the DVD. It's certainly not the FBI. The MPAA would like nothing more than for their customers to be confused about what copyright law really means. They are trying to convince people that they will go to prison for civil infringement (which is not a punishment that civil courts can give) in order to scare them, not to mention the whole "theft" nonsense that they spread as well. This is what happens when you learn how the law works from a private industry with a specific agenda.

Not even close. YouTube does not sell the videos. Actively selling and passively hosting are completely different things. Then again, this has been explained multiple times already and you still don't understand the difference.

They aren't different at all as far as copyright infringement is concerned, money does not matter. Oh, and if you're going to call me stupid, just do it and stop dancing around about it.

I don't believe it follows that just because Amazon's effort was not sufficient in all cases that making no effort is then acceptable.

I would agree. However, my point is that they both need to be treated equally. Either Amazon and P2P users are both responsible for verifying, or neither is. Saying that Amazon is not, but P2P users are, when they are doing the exact same thing, is a case of making rules apply differently depending on whether you are a large corporation or a private individual.

Quote:

I was not comparing the infractions. I was comparing what is expected of people in our society as far as making sure their behavior is legal. If there is no price tag, a reasonable person would expect they would need to ask what the price is, not that they could just assume that it was there for the taking. If Ms. Thomas just assumed she had the legal right to redistribute those files without asking anyone or checking up on it, then she clearly was told by the courts that it was not the case.

If we must compare it to theft... how about:

If there is an item on the shelf of a store with a sign on it that says "Free: Take one.", how much responsibility does the shopper have to verify that the store is the one that put the sign there and not some other person.

Still, I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in that analogy as well. Infringement and theft are fundamentally different, you can't really make a useful analogy between them.

There must be some sort of difference since the Pirate Bay guys got a year in prison.

Besides the fact that they are in different countries with completely different laws, the main difference is that TPB got prosecuted and Amazon didn't. The question is, if somebody decided to prosecute Amazon, would Amazon lose?

IMO, probably. That's the reason they removed all of the content, they are hoping it will help them avoid prosecution.

I wonder if they'd be willing to answer questions about the differences between the two. When I have a choice between to pbooks in a store, I can tell if one has a nicer layout or better paper or more-recent cover, or an intro by a famous person, or whatever.

Are formatting differences involved, and pictures... or does the DRM really add almost 500kb to the file?

I wonder if they'd be willing to answer questions about the differences between the two. When I have a choice between to pbooks in a store, I can tell if one has a nicer layout or better paper or more-recent cover, or an intro by a famous person, or whatever.

Are formatting differences involved, and pictures... or does the DRM really add almost 500kb to the file?

FW doesn't tell you what the difference between the editions is.

Even cheaper is Feedbook's version. It's FREE! The copyright wasn't renewed on this book and it went into the public domain.

[Edit: According to Wikipedia, "A 50th Anniversary Edition was published in 1995 including an appendix which reproduces the entire original British edition with Ayn Rand's handwritten editorial changes." Maybe this is what is being sold by Fictionwise?]